I’d first like to thank the host of the show, Tom Ashbrook, for a job well done, showing concern for the way society is treating our young girls,and boys too.

I think the level of discourse in this comments section is terrific and I agree with a lot of whats been written here. I want to concur with robin, on Oct. 21st, 08 @ 11:02am EDT, when she agrees with patricia fabbri, on Oct. 20th, 08 @ 11:34am EDT, concerning Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. This scholar is a non-starter. Cynical perhaps and maybe she feels this type of literature is for a lower social class albeit not a lower financial class, compared to the Ivy-league class.

I work with teens, primarily high school juniors and seniors in a residential summer art programs. First, let me say that I truly believe that young people give me hope for our future…these are great people.
Unfortunately, I have heard them described on this radio program by the parents and experts as some kind of amorphous blob of “sponges” eager to absorb all of society’s negativity. Negativity that we adults, by the way, purposefully and methodically market to this particular age bracket. How sad for our young people that we adults cannot see them for the smart, discerning, powerful individuals with good personalities, clear opinions and interesting perspectives on the world. The kids I meet know junk when they see it.

Let’s talk about the classics, which I happen to love to read. That love was instilled in me by my mother; I have read classic literature all my life and read it to my daughter growing up. Let us remember that some classic literature was written in times of slavery, when women did not vote, when civil war was waging…so before we get all sentimental about the good ole days of classic literature… read David Copperfield for example or even, dare I say it, Little Women.

Young women today can discern the social context of classic literature as well as contemporary. If they have been taught and prepared to do so. These are smart and savvy kids who we have prepared to enter the world.

Our responsibility as writers and artists, it is to create contemporary work that becomes classic not junk.

My parents were great, but sex was a topic that was not discussed until we were older, so by then I already had formed my own opinions, having “learned” from my friends and the media. I ended up becoming involved with sex at an alarmingly young age and then having years of guilty feelings about myself afterward. It was not until many years later that I could see sex as a healthy, positive thing. Nowadays I value my intelligence a lot more than my image, and it means much more to me to be respected than to be merely attractive.

The thing that scares me is that now I have a daughter of my own, and the media images have gotten even raunchier and more outlandish since I was coming of age. I plan to be very open with my kids about sex and body image, and teach them to be aware of the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways that the media influences people every day of our lives. It’s scary to think how totally unaware I was back then! I also plan to be more restrained about TV time.

The Beacon Street Girls book in question (“Freaked Out”) wasn’t promoting alcohol in any way. A minor character got drunk, started a fight with someone else, and threw up all over the place. The other characters who witnessed this immediately decided that drinking was not cool. The back of the book extras even included facts about the dangers of alcohol abuse and underage drinking.

Just curious, what do you let your kids read?

This is a good example of the naivete of parents in choosing books for their children: the age levels labeled on books or noted in many reviews reflect reading level, not content.

On example is the “Nancy Drew Case Files” and corresponding “Hardy Boys” series that was started in the late 1980’s to attract an older readership. Parents, not realizing that the “mysteries” in this series involved subjects like drug trafficking, prostitution, international organized crime, and such “Miami Vice” type storylines, were purchasing them for their 7-10 year old “Nancy Drew” readers. (Of course, this is also a great time to point out that the original Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys mysteries have been heavily dumbed down over the years.) When I pointed out that those titles reflected more adult themes, most parents didn’t care. But hey, there are 8 year olds reading Stephen King, too.

YES, it does matter! On the heels of the Candace Bushnell interview, the “Girls Girls Girls” show was tremendously effective in underscoring the very real battle for the hearts and minds of young girls (and boys).

I agree with an earlier post by patricia that the child development expert, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, was neither well vetted nor capable of grasping the core of the issue. In fairness, perhaps she is capable, but I was disappointed that her contributions to the show were so superficial. By comparison, I find many of the comments on this thread much more ‘on point’!

And yes, there definitely IS a connection between the content of Gossip Girl and the economic crisis–it’s the creation and celebration of an artificial, unattainable reality. The glamorization of materialism, drugs, and casual sex may not be new, but it has become so pervasive and so deep that it now surrounds our 9 year olds in what they see, read, and hear every day. I challenge anyone to explain how this distorted view of life does not shape our kids and ultimately, our society.

Anyway, back to the kids. As a librarian in a school, I’ve elected not to buy a lot of it, mainly because of curriculum and – especially – budget constraints. I know the public library carries a lot of the popular series and I direct kids there.

I’ll be honest: I’m not AS worried about the sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Kids have been seeking material on those topics for centuries. But I do have a content complaint that was not addressed on the show. There is an enormous amount of brand-dropping – indeed, downright PRODUCT PLACEMENT – in the Clique, Gossip Girls, and other novels. Professionals in children’s literature point out that some of these books are distributed via the same channels as popular clothes and styles mentioned in the books (i.e. Delia’s catalog/”magazine”). Beyond that possible and insidious marketing scheme, I couldn’t even get through a Gossip Girl book because of all the brand name references: Manolo, Stella McCartney, the list goes on. I love fashion myself, but do we need the name-dropping, really? in a tween/teen book? We expect it in a magazine, but kids are not en guarde when reading a book. Experience tells me that kids are noticing these names, all of which are far beyond their parents’ financial reach, and it makes them more brand-conscious and catty at school.

“A show called GOSSIP GIRLS”

Tom, will you be my best friend forever?

This is the second time in the discussion when someone placed the responsibility for the conent children are exposed to on the media itself (writers and editors).

But as I and another poster have pointed out, the fundamental responsibility is the parent’s. Do you personally know the writers and editors? Do they know your child? NO! So why do you want to delegate responsility to them? You are the one responsible for what your child reads and watches on TV, assuming you let them watch TV at all.

While some of your speakers talked about preserving girls’ innocence, as a teenager, I was more than able to sniff out this kind of condescension. Moreover, like many other teenagers, my friends took risks, had sex, used drugs, drank, got depressed, had eating disorders, attempted suicide, lied to our parents and generally made a lot of mistakes.

This happens on the Upper East Side where I lived, and where Gossip Girl takes place, as it does in all kinds of communities all around the country.

I encountered the Gossip Girl series a few years ago among the free samples that came to the children’s literacy organization where I worked after college. It is fun even now to see some aspects of my teenage years represented in such fun and popular series.

Gossip Girl is not pure realism (way too many limos!), and I would have known that just as well when I was 15. The series is certainly refreshing, though, and hearing Cecily von Ziegesar on the show made me like her even more.

I understand the argument that it “raises issues” but unfortunately it more often than not glamorizes these behaviors. If in doubt, just notice the rise in eating disorders with the ideal female size shrinking, and the increase of “cutting” after the movie “Girl Interrupted”.

The media will not be responsible (as evidenced in their history), so we as parents need to step up to the plate!

While the Beacon Street Girls books are the more wholesome alternative to the Gossip Girls series, they’re just too unrealistic. They paint middle school as a friendly fantasy-land where kids are rarely mean to each other.

This simply isn’t true. Middle school girls are especially vicious; they swear, they spread rumors, they stab each other in the back (not literally, thank God). As someone who was made fun of non-stop in middle school (by girls), I’m almost offended at how unrealistic the Beacon Street Girls books are.

What I’d really like to see is a realistic series for middle school girls that deals with issues like bullies, rumors/gossip, dating, etc.

BTW, did anyone see the Wall Street Journal article in August about getting boys to read . . .
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121814900158422243.html